Labels

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Big-Note Sinner Explains Himself.

We get a lot of sinners in the Tavern. This place is a refreshment stop while they gather and imbibe some Dutch courage* before going to Confession, and they can mix it up with some Heroes and the occasional Saintly person at the bars, for hints on improving their chances. We get just a very few of the saints. But today we hosted and welcomed a fairly well known and perhaps infamous chap who is known for his particular sins. Mr Milo Yiannopoulos. 

Milo seems aware of his fate (as told by Mr Folau just the other day) and he too has been whacked unmercifully by the holier-than-thou mob baying beyond the Tavern's hedges. Just what the red bandana fellow would say about him I have not heard. But some 'Religious'  and Priestly folk who have a magazine in America are not prepared, it seems, to break the not-quite confessional seal and repeat what he told them.

Milo, though, likes to shout it about in his well-known provocative style.

Bearing in mind that I do not ask my customers to sit around the table comparing sins, and that I do not see m'self getting into a 'my sins are bigger than your's' game, I nevertheless poured him a pint and let his speak his mind.

Bear in mind too that I am a Tavern Keeper and I do not agree with all that my customers say and do. I pull pints, serve the tables and pray for them all. And to quote him "I’m sure he doesn’t deserve to have me hung around his neck as an admirer".

So, a bit about him as introduction, for he is not all that he seems. Milo Yiannopoulos, born Milo Hanrahan on 18 October 1984 is a British political commentator and writer. 

He is openly gay.

And a Catholic.

Yiannopoulos is a former senior editor for Breitbart News, who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". He is a critic of feminism, Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements. Though often described as a member of the alt-right, he rejects this label, stating that there are many "points of difference" between him and the alt-right movement. 

Yiannopoulos was born and raised in Kent, England. After being expelled from Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys, he studied at the University of Manchester and Wolfson College, Cambridge, but failed to gain a degree from either. After university, Yiannopoulos initially secured a job at The Catholic Herald. He was interested in becoming a theatre critic. However, Yiannopoulos' break came with his interest in technology journalism while investigating the subject of women in computing in 2009 for The Daily Telegraph. 

The rest is very loud and vociferous appearances on social media and many venues in many countries, where he is regularly berated. He gives as good - and better - than he gets.

Stand, sir and speak. Note though that I had ales to pour and didn't hear it all. You may need to follow the link to fill in what I missed.
The Catholic Magazine Interview with MILO They Refuse To Print
(A while) ago, I sent the following answers to questions I was asked by America magazine, a journal run by Jesuits.
They have chosen not to publish it, perhaps out of compassion, fearing too many of their aging readers would suffer heart failure. Or perhaps they couldn’t stand my tweaking of their most famous contributor, Fr. James Martin, notorious for equivocating over any Church teaching that might cause a stir at an Anglican garden party.
Amusingly, while the Jesuits struggled to decide if they could bear to publish my answers, one of the Church’s highest ranking Cardinals called out Fr. Martin by name as “one of the most outspoken critics of the church’s message with regard to sexuality.” 
That means my side in this dispute enjoys support from a black prince of the Church raised on a continent where martyrdom is common, while the other side’s champion is a white bourgeois man in whose life the worst threat is that the wine is a bit off this week. 
Ask yourself:  Which of these men would you want to have your side?
Q. Although you grew up Catholic, you now say and do many shocking things in your public career which seem to be at odds with your childhood faith. In what sense do you still consider yourself a Catholic? 
Plenty of saints were shocking, to say nothing of our Lord, who got in a spot of trouble for His shocking claims, as you might recall. I am certainly no saint, but I don’t think “shocking” is a helpful way of approaching the question of Catholics in public life. 
It doesn’t settle much to say that the current Pope is shocking to many Catholics, including me. 
Or to note that I’m shocked by supposedly Catholic politicians who make laws in flat contradiction to the natural law, which you need no faith to grasp.
In my case, do you mean it’s shocking that a Catholic like me is loudly worried about Islam, which has waged war on Holy Mother Church for more than a millennium? 
Or that I say Planned Parenthood’s abortion crusade amounts to black genocide? 
Or that I’ve supported Pope Paul VI’s criticism of artificial contraception so strongly that Hillary Clinton attacked me for it in her presidential campaign? 
Frankly, what’s really shocking is that a poor sinner like me has spoken out more on contraception than 99% of our bishops, who seem too preoccupied with diversity and climate change to talk about God. 
Maybe you mean it’s shocking that I’m always joking about my lack of chastity and my fondness for black dudes, but I still call myself Catholic. And I don’t see what’s so shocking about that, either. One of the most famous saints of all time, sixteen centuries ago, prayed, “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.” 
Anyone who grows up in Catholic cities like New Orleans and Rome emerges pretty unshockable — and certainly wouldn’t be alarmed by me.
I think it was a visit to New Orleans that inspired Evelyn Waugh to make an observation I often quote:  
Protestants seem to think, I’m good, therefore I go to church, whereas Catholics think, I’m very bad, therefore I go to church.
 Waugh also said, when people asked how he could call himself a Catholic: 
"You have no idea how bad I’d be if I weren’t".
Sins of the flesh, let us remember, are at the bottom of the scale. The Church says self-righteousness is at the top. Therefore, I’m in a lot better shape than some of my feminist and establishment Republican enemies. To say nothing of Islam! 
In life, I believe in aspiration. If you’re a poor kid, aspire to rise economically. If you’re shy, aspire to confidence, so you can defend your views in public. 
And if you’re a wretched sinner like me, aspire to end up better than you are now. Miracles do happen! 
I am happy to report that many in the bar stood, cheered and raised their glasses. We hope for Divine assistance too.
Q. Where do you experience tensions with Catholicism in your life?
Who says any Catholic should lack tension stoked by his weaknesses? We Catholics are better at clothes, food, and parties. Why shouldn’t we be better at guilt, too?
Ho Ho Ho !
You don’t see me disputing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. There’s no intellectual tension, because I wouldn’t dream of demanding that the Church throw away her hard truths just to lie to me in hopes I’ll feel better about myself. I love the truth, not lies, and I know no one’s feelings are the basis of truth. 
That’s why I don’t understand those Catholics — such as, if you’ll forgive my horrid impertinence, this magazine’s editor at large, Fr. Martin — who imply that if people don’t like what the Church says, maybe the Church is wrong or should apologize. 
The Church was founded on a rock and a cross, not on a hug.
Still, if you insist I talk about feelings, I’ve said before that I feel there’s something wrong with the fact that my lovemaking can’t produce the mini-Milo’s I’d like to have. How’s that for a subjective confirmation of the Church teaching that same-sex attraction is “objectively disordered” because it can’t lead to procreation?
Bottom line:  The Church says I’m not culpable for my temptations, but I shouldn’t sin. 
She’s right. And her founder said He came to heal those who knew they were sick, so I don’t despair.
Q. What was the best thing about your Catholic upbringing?
One good thing was hearing Mary praised for her motherhood. 
Whatever my own mother’s shortcomings, I learned that motherhood is the greatest vocation, and one that God banned all men from. That’s why I think it’s sad that today’s feminists, as Chesterton observed, despise motherhood and all the other chief feminine characteristics. 
The idea that men and women shouldn’t be different — shouldn’t have different interests, strengths, and ways of relating to Creation — is insane, and it’s empirical fact that trying to deny these differences makes all of us less happy.
Growing up Catholic also taught me the value of humility, even if that’s not exactly a forte of mine. This virtue is important for society, because it teaches us to be tolerant of a diversity of opinions, rather than arrogantly trying to silence people we disagree with. And it’s important for me personally, because despite my vanity, I know I’m not as smart as Thomas Aquinas or as good as St. Francis. 
There’s a great line from the novelist Flannery O’Connor, who liked to shock and troll a bit herself: 
“I’m not limited to what I personally feel or think; 
I’m a Catholic.” 
She meant the same thing Chesterton did in his famous quip, “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Political correctness gives us thin gruel and loneliness. The Church gives us a grand party with red meat and red wine.
Q. How do you pray?
On my knees.
Ahhh. My knees are getting old. I pray on my knees in church where a cushioned 'kneeler' is made available, but otherwise not while driving, walking, washing up, cooking, pouring pints etc. 
Q. Who are your role models, either living or dead, in the Catholic faith?
Pope Benedict XVI is still the wisest and most erudite man in Europe, though I’m sure he doesn’t deserve to have me hung around his neck as an admirer. 
He was also brave enough to declare publicly that Islam’s irrationalism is one of the world’s great problems. 
By the way, in the same Regensburg lecture he pointed out that secularists in the West are also dangerously unbalanced, because they’re as hostile to religion as Muslims are to rationality. I note that he credits my wild pagan ancestors in Greece for the West’s deepest rational roots.
My personal motto, “laughter and war,” comes from a passage in Chesterton’s Heretics. 
He should be the patron saint of Catholic journalists. 
And of course Hilaire Belloc was brilliant as a defender of the West. In the 1930s, when the Caliphate had collapsed and no one imagined Islam would ever come back, he prophesied that the West would again be threatened, because our superior money and technology can’t take the place of a devotion to your civilization.
I’ve already quoted St. Augustine, who had his own pelvic issues. I once tweeted out an illustrated page from his Confessions that began, “I will now recall my past foulnesses.” That’ll work for my memoirs someday, too.
Rabelais and the anonymous trolls who wrote the Carmina Burana are kindred spirits.
Q. What’s your favorite Scripture passage and why? 
I’m tempted to go for the easy Waugh line from Ecclesiastes:  “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
Q. You recently self-published the new book “Dangerous” after Breitbart fired you and your original publisher withdrew the contract. How do you respond to critics who say you are “hateful” and “hurtful” to others?
The truth often hurts, as the Church has always understood. That’s one reason she so often shows us a Man in agony on a cross. I don’t delight in others’ pain, but I’m not scared into silence by the fear someone somewhere will take offense.
The fact that so many of us think hurting people’s feelings is the greatest evil says all you need to know about the decline of our civilization. If I’m wrong about something, don’t whine; show me evidence and make rational arguments.
Or tell a good joke! A big part of what I do is playing the jester, telling the powerful the truths they don’t want to hear. Maybe that’s what you meant about my “shocking” aspect. 
A friend who’s a brilliant medievalist at the University of Chicago (and who was just received into the Church this Easter, Deo gratias), likes to embarrass me by writing about me as a holy fool.
I say embarrass, but of course it’s a great compliment and I am happy to receive any kind of attention. 
Q. What does masculinity mean to you?
It means a willingness to expose yourself to enemy fire, whether or not you wear a uniform, in order to defend the good — 
your family, your church, your country, your civilization. 
Now the men in uniform are much better men than I, but even I can do a bit to defend those things with the gifts God gave me.
Our Lord, as always, showed the way: He endured the horrors of the Passion to defend and redeem the whole world. I’m with Rod Dreher: 
Anybody who only preaches a namby-pamby God, and not the highly masculine God of Scripture, is leaving young men vulnerable to the monstrous false gods of race and ideology. 
Boys struggling to become men are always potential barbarians, because they hunger for masculinity but aren’t sure where to find it or how to productively express it. 
Our Lord revealed it to them, but too many in the Church keep masculinity hidden or the subject of shame.
Q. The Vatican has launched a commission to examine and overhaul the Holy See’s media communications strategy. If you could give any advice to Pope Francis about how to do journalism today, what would it be?
Stop talking. 
Q. Any final thoughts?
 Pray for me. I need it.

I will sir. 

I hope all will. 

There are those who can absolve sins and those, like me, who cannot. 

But I can drink to your redemption.

I can drink to and pray for His Mercy to come down upon you to lift the yoke of your particular manner of sinfulness.

Pray that He lifts mine too, different but damaging to my soul as they are.

Off to Confession now Milo.

Pax Brother. 




PS. 
* It will be the very thin-skinned Dutchman that takes offence





Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Folau the Leader

OK, he doesn't lead anything really important but by crikey he finds himself pursued by a pack of baying dogs. He is a Rugger player. A pretty good one by all accounts. But he has been condemned and excoriated for answering a simple question, simply, and in a manner that would not have turned a hair several decades ago before the lights of reasonableness went out.

One more nail in the coffin of western values, one might say, and another rung underfoot for nonebrities who shout the loudest. Like the FitzSimons chap with the bandana head.

Let's look at Israel. The fellow, not the Nation.

Israel Folau (Tongan: Isileli Folau; born 3 April 1989) is an Australian professional rugby union footballer who plays for the Waratahs in Super Rugby. He has previously played professional rugby league and Australian rules football.

Folau played rugby league for the Melbourne Storm in the National Rugby League (NRL) from 2007 to 2008, where he broke the record for most tries in a debut year. He then played with the Brisbane Broncos from 2009 to 2010. Playing as a wing or centre, Folau represented Queensland in State of Origin and Australia (the Kangaroos), becoming the youngest player to play for both teams. He won eight international caps.


In 2011 Folau joined the Greater Western Sydney Giants in the Australian Football League (AFL) and played for two seasons without great distinction. In December 2012, he announced he was to switch codes again, this time to rugby union, and signed a one-year contract with the Waratahs. He made his international debut for Australia (the Wallabies) in 2013, and has since won 62 caps.

Quite a sportsman, it seems. Well regarded. He plays the manly game. He knows the rules.

But some tweeting personage asked him about homosexuals, and being a Mormon (I think. - barely a Christian in the usual sense) he went to his Bible and read the rules.

As you can imagine, the proverbial hit the fan. The 'news' exploded. The CEO of Qantas had a hissy fit. Rugger chiefs peed their pants and dropped their daks. Media luvvies rushed to the grounds to jostle to the head of the line with whips and cudgels.

Top referee Nigel Owens says Israel Folau’s Instagram post went too far
GAY referee Nigel Owens has penned a highly personal column criticising Israel Folau, saying the Wallabies superstar’s infamous “HELL” Instagram post had the potential to tip a young person struggling with their sexuality “over the edge.”

Welshman Owens is one of rugby’s most respected figures who controlled the 2015 World Cup final between New Zealand and Australia.
He came out as gay in 2007 and has become a leading voice for inclusion in sport.
Well, as Mandy R-D would say: "he would say that, wouldn't he". 

Owens praised rugby’s sense of community in dealing with such issues but said Folau’s comments — in which he said gay people would go to hell unless they repent — were a major setback.
“Comments like Israel Folau’s about gay people and all other types of bullying by all kinds of people is what can put people like that young boy in that moment where it’s enough to tip them over the edge, because there is a minority out there who give the impression that you cannot be who you truly are,” Owens wrote.
Owens said he respected Folau’s right to oppose same sex marriage but argued that saying gay people were destined for hell was “something totally different.”
Would you let your son play on his pitch?  Those homo rules have been around for over 3000 friggin' years and he thinks they are 'different? 

Anyway, aren't differences to be cheered? Tolerance and all that. Inclusivity? 

A nonebrity sporty from a different sport altogether chimed in..
Goalkeeping great Mark Bosnich slams Israel Folau ‘hate speech’
GOALKEEPING great Mark Bosnich has urged Rugby Australia and the Waratahs to take decisive action on the Israel Folau controversy, saying the Wallabies star’s ‘gays to hell’ post had crossed the line from freedom of speech to hate speech.
Folau met with RA chief executive Raelene Castle and Waratahs boss Andrew Hore on Tuesday to discuss his use of social media.
Castle and Hore will talk to media at 1pm AEST.
Folau, a devout Christian, caused a firestorm with his Instagram post in which he said gay people were destined to go to hell unless they repent.
Heck, it is not as though it is a personal decision by Folau that buggers will get theirs in the end. He was simply telling what the rules say. 

Well Raelene (who?) and Hore (an apt enough name if spelled slightly  shamefacedly) did meet. 

Rugby bosses Raelene Castle and Andrew Hore speak after Israel Folau meeting
ISRAEL Folau has not been disciplined for his divisive ‘gays to hell’ post after a meeting with his rugby bosses.
But the deeply religious Wallabies star “understands he’s caused some grief.”
Folau and his manager met with Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle and Waratahs boss Andrew Hore in Sydney on Tuesday.
Castle described the meeting as “very open, very calm and very honest.”
What the heck is that woman doing being CEO of a men's club?   Why is Hore not wearing a skirt? Is he a misogynist?

But it was the 'less measured' (if you can call that above as measured at all) media luvvies' comments that took the flag. Or the cup. Or shield. Whatever luvvies play for.  The most strident and demanding voice was of Peter FitzSimons, a nonebrity of enormous ego, not to metion strangely attired head. Mark Powell filled us in.
Fairfax, Folau and FitzSimons
The Fairfax papers has become so strident in their LGBTIQ advocacy that they cannot tolerate anyone having a view other than their own. And what’s more, they’ll publicly name and shame anyone who does. Just take the recent incident involving Israel Folau who unleashed the social media lynch mob recently, simply for expressing—perhaps a little incautiously—the traditional Christian view that sexual immorality will result in God’s judgment (i.e. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
As the following screenshot—of the since-deleted tweet—demonstrates, Folau was simply answering a question that was directly posed to him in a completely unrelated thread.
 
And to his credit, he gave a straightforward answer as to what he personally believed.
A couple of years ago a statement like this would hardly have raised an eyebrow, 
and even been broadly supported by the media, 
but in this new era of ‘sexularism’, Folau has been publicly condemned by Peter FitzSimons, the self-appointed judge, jury and executioner of Australian sporting celebrities for their offences against political correctness.
Now, an aside for non-Oz folk. FitzSimons, who likes to present himself like an ostentatious bikie, is married to a TV presenter moll who has a gig with Waleed Ali, the  Oz TV favourite Muslim.  I wonder what his reaction (and her's) would be to someone tweeting Waleed and asking what his religion says should be done to homosexuals. It would not be much different from Falau's remark, except Waleed's mates would send them there from the top of a high-rise. The gay referee would be tipped over the edge, for sure, regardless of his affinity for a Muslim airline.
Just take FitzSimon’s article where he self-righteously declared that Folau’s comments were “anathema” to the “greatest of rugby’s values”. 
But I wonder if Fitzsimmons—himself an outspoken atheist—appreciates the irony, or even hypocrisy, in his choice of words? Because the term “anathema” means:
*Something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.
*A formal curse by a Pope or a Council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
For someone as irreligious as FitzSimons, it’s interesting that he has chosen to take upon himself the role of pronouncing religious heresy—with its subsequent sanction of excommunication and ultimate damnation—upon those with whom he disagrees. 
The question I’d like to ask is, “Who made him Pontiff?” Because I for one certainly didn’t see any white smoke coming out of the Vatican.
Nor the TV media stations. Heck, not even the ABC. 
In comparison, consider the mature and measured comments of Alan Jones. (Yes, I really did just use those two adjectives to explain something that Jones said in the same sentence) It would have been easy for Jones to have gone along with the crowd and condemn Folau for his comments about practising homosexuals. But he didn’t. Instead, he focused his attention on the real issue facing the Wallabies at present:
All most rugby fans know about rugby’s inclusion policy is that it includes too much failure.
Israel Folau is entitled to his view. Let him express it. He will be judged accordingly and would not expect not to be so judged.
The greatest difference between the perspectives of Jones and FitzSimons is what they perceive as being rugby’s “greatest values”. Because whereas for Jones it’s winning—especially against the All-Blacks—for FitzSimons it’s the virtue signalling of identity politics. As FitzSimons states:
The greatest of all rugby values is inclusion. We want everyone on board: white, black, tall, small, fat, thin, abled, disabled, straight, gay, men, women, young, old, etc.
Good grief. And people wonder why Australian rugby is in such a state of crisis. 
The next thing you know FitzSimons will be saying that we need to give everyone a go and the opportunity to pull on a jersey? Somebody needs to remind him that this an elite sport that we’re talking about, rather than working for Qantas.
You see, while Fitzsimons thinks that the most important thing to be done is to affirm absolutely everyone under the rainbow spectrum, Jones analyses why it is that the National Team is no longer winning. Because let’s face it, they’re a long way from the ‘halcyon days’ of the eighties and nineties when we actually had a chance against New Zealand.
According to Jones, it all comes down to talent, and in particular, the structures that are needed to develop and keep our best players, coaches and support staff from being pilfered by league. As Jones rightly explains:
If we can’t keep the best, we have no hope of being the best. There’s no room for “average people”.
We can’t allow our young people to be demoralised because they’re drowning in mediocrity, surrounded by mediocrity, coached by mediocrity and, as a result, being dismissed as part of rugby’s mediocrity.
Understandably, the ambitious see a system that doesn’t work and go where their talent can be identified, evaluated and cultivated.
Jones is not afraid to name names in outlining his course of action as to what has to take place if Australia rugby is to be saved. And you also get the sense that Jones still has the passion and the skill to oversee the process to make the Wallabies once again successful.
But not so with FitzSimons. 
He’s only concerned with passing eternal judgment upon those with whom he disagrees. 
And as such, it’s FitzSimons really needs to pull his head in, red bandana and all. For if FitzSimons wants to champion the value of “inclusion” then he has to tolerate people having a different opinion to his own.
FitzSimons is, quite frankly, behaving like a bully, especially towards Folau, but also anyone who dares to express an opinion different to his own. Sure, Folau was incautious in the way he expressed his viewpoint in response to an antagonist on his Twitter account, but he is certainly no ‘homophobe’ and has never incited hatred towards LGBTIQ people.
But it seems that we have entered a new era of religious ‘intolerance’, where anyone who disagrees with the current status quo is socially excluded and professionally sanctioned. 
Or where, even more seriously, the greatest ‘sin’ is to believe that there is such a thing as sin itself. 
And as such, FitzSimons would be better off listening to Alan Jones—his former coach—and focusing his energy on fixing Australian rugby then culturally reprimanding everyone else.

I don't hold a brief for Israel Folau. I am not his lawyer. Heck I am not even a mormon. But his very small comment, saying what pretty well all Christians have been saying for several millenia, is not a matter for his excoriation.

Particularly by drongos, gay, (or straight), airline-running, TV nonebritying, sports 'authority' bossing etc.

Drink up.

You may be next.

Pray for the lefty luvvies and society wreckers. 

They are feeding the crocs.

Pax 









Friday, April 6, 2018

Straw man on the Last Stalk ?

Can we eradicate 'straw men' arguements, so often the plague of Hansard, by the simple expedient of banning straws? We may wish. Of course, the use of such arguements is currently restricted to lady interviewers on the UK's Channel Four and to left wing politicians, notably the Green Left. They will no doubt fight back providing Canadian Professors with ludicrous-argument entertainment.  And I hope many others will oppose and laugh out their extreme claims, even if just to enable ladies in the Tavern to drink their Grace-full concoctions in a ladylike fashion. 

You think banning straws is a last straw?  Do you want to keep straws? 

By crikey, so you are saying that you want to destroy the planet !

Two items were drawn into conversation today. One from Western Australia, where Mr Kim Beasley, failed Labour leader of yesteryear has recently scored a $450,000 a year gig as Governor.  He wants a Republic but meanwhile will take the money, it seems. And another from a visiting pub landlord. Yes, we do have other publicans dropping in to see how we are doing, just as I maintain cordial (and Ale-ial) relations with a wide and wide-spread range of other pubs. 

So first to WA where straws and ballons are to be banned. Our own Pin and Balloon Bar will remain a 'safe space' however. Daniel Emerson spoke to it.
Greens anti-pollution Bill would ban balloons and drinking straws.

Balloons, plastic bags and drinking straws are among the prohibited items under the new bill.

The Greens, often labelled the fun police, want to formalise the tag by banning balloons throughout WA.
Balloons, drinking straws and micro-beads used in cosmetics and cleaning products are among a range of offending materials the Greens want banned alongside a Statewide crackdown on plastic bags to reduce pollution.

Mining and Pastoral Region MLC Robin Chapple put a private member’s Bill on the Legislative Council notice paper yesterday which would fine retailers $5000 for selling or supplying prohibited bags, balloons, beads, plastic straws and polystyrene or polyethylene packaging.

Mr Chapple said he accepted elements of the community could baulk at a balloon ban but denied the Greens were trying to outlaw fun.

“You can’t have much fun in the ocean if there’s no fish left,” he said.

A Statewide plastic bag ban, with the extra items tacked on, is looming as a major test of the Labor Government’s treatment of the Greens, whose four votes are needed along with crossbench support to pass its legislation in the Upper House.

Mr Chapple said WA, NSW and Victoria were the only States that did not have some restriction on plastic bags.
But the Greens could not nominate any jurisdiction in the world which had banned balloons.
The Bill’s penalties for sale or supply of prohibited items would target retailers and not individuals.
It contains exemptions for balloons used for medical or health-related purposes, such as condoms, and those used for “meteorological purposes” or for “carrying passengers”.

Biodegradable straws would be permitted.

“If our current rates of plastic production and disposal continue it is estimated that the volume of plastic in the ocean will outweigh the volume of sea life by 2050,” Mr Chapple said.
Altogether now.... hahahahahahahahaha
The Greens’ hope to debate the Bill in September but would need Government support to put it to a vote.

Environment Minister Stephen Dawson, who indicated his support for a Statewide plastic bag ban last month, said the Government was investigating the best way to implement it.

“The McGowan Labor Government has no current plans to legislate a Statewide ban on the release of balloons, however, it supports efforts to raise public awareness of the unintended consequences of releasing balloons during celebrations,” he said.
Here we are in enormous national debt and the WA gummunt wants to save the fish. 

Has anyone actually examined the seas off the west coast of Oz?  

Over in the disUnited Kingdom of what was, not long ago, Great Britain, a similar daft pressure is forcing beer from the pumps in pubs. The Pub Curmudgeon himself was sampling our fine ales while on holiday and he felt he had to speak up too.
The last straw?

In recent months, there has been a steady procession of pub operators announcing that they were phasing out the use of plastic straws, the latest being the Deltic Group. The reason given is that, heeding the message of programmes like “Blue Planet”, it will reduce the amount of plastic waste entering the oceans and harming aquatic wildlife. 
However, it has to be questioned how much effect it’s going to have. 
I’d guess the overwhelming majority of plastic straws used in pubs in the UK end up in landfill, not in the sea. Plus 90% of all the plastic waste in the oceans originates from just ten rivers in Asia and Africa. It’s not to say it isn’t worth doing, but realistically it will be literally a drop in the ocean.

Now, he makes a good point: one that was raised here in the Tavern just a month or two back. 

Take a look....
....and while you are there, follow the link shown, where you will see just what rivers are providingthe pollution. It ain't the Severn, that's for sure.


There is an obvious alternative in the form of paper straws. 
However, presumably there’s a disadvantage that they become soggy after a while. Are they really any more likely to end up in the recycling, particularly if they’re treated with chemicals to make them more durable? 
And one pub found out that, what they gained on the swings, they lost on the roundabouts:

Someone from the Star Inn in Bath chimed in....
So, we've decided to start using paper straws.

The plastic ones we had came in a cardboard box.

Guess what the paper ones come in...#fail

It’s also hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s an element of snobbery in the campaign against straws. Straws are used by the scummy plebs when eating at McDonald’s or slurping giant cartons of Coke in the cinema; they’re not for sophisticated people like us.

Is putting waste into landfill all that bad anyway? 
In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg shows how the entire production of waste in the USA in the 21st century could be accommodated in a landfill that covered just 26% of a single county in Oklahoma, or one twelve-thousandth of the total area of the country.
Hmmmm. Mathematically, very likely correct, but I have friends in Oklahoma who might take umbrage. Why not some desert somewhere? 


It’s far more manageable than is often claimed. Of course waste should be recycled if it’s practical to do so, but single-use plastics have brought us major advances in convenience and hygiene that shouldn’t be breezily dismissed. 
Wanting to make everything recyclable is very much a First World indulgence.
Especially as most of the ocean pollution - and I mean most - comes from er.... Asia and Africa. 

The entire 'environmental' greenie-driven agenda is a distraction and a wearing-down. A red herring. 

Behind your back the Red-Greens have a gun.
The conclusion must be that dropping plastic straws is really  
just a piece of easy environmental virtue-signalling 
rather than something that is really going to make a significant difference. 
If pub operators want to take a serious look at their environmental impact across the board, shouldn’t they be considering stopping shipping water (which is pretty much what beer is) all the way across the Atlantic and abandoning single-use containers for draught beer?
How many 65 y/o WA fishermen do you think will have to continue struggling their way through balloon and straw filled waves to get enough fish to feed their families and pay the tax to keep Mr Beasley in comfort?

How much longer will Parliaments in Oz, and the UK have to put up with ludicrous  Green demanded 'business' that interferes with people going about their lawful occasions on the pretext that they will 'save the Planet'?


YOU are their Wicker Man.

The ale in the Tavern comes with no carbon footprint at all. Just the soft swish of an Angel gliding through the Tavern-door Agape with a flask on his shoulder. 

We shall provide straws.

And balloons.

And fish in the restaurant on Fridays.

Drink up me hearties.

Pax

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Playing the Man, not the Ball

Oz is a nation that loves its sport and sporting heroes, and it has been reeling over the past week due to some appalling lack of sportsmanship.  You can tell that Oz loves sport from all the sport that is shown on TV and all the TV shows that focus on endlessly dissecting games. Usually 'footy'.  Talking, blokey heads galore fill the TV channels levening the boring minutae with wiscracks and occasional offensive slurs which in turn make the newspapers and more TV shows. There is always much talk and the 'play' itself is at the highest level.

Which possibly explains why not all that many actually play. Australians like to win and there's little chance of that against really good players. And who wants to be seen playing with or against weenies? So we have couch-sporties.

But our best and fairest rise to the National Teams, in this sport or that.  Cricket being at the Top of the Tree of fame. They play against the best that furriners, like Britain, can muster. In South Africa, the famed and adored Oz Cricket team - cricket being the epitome of the 'Gentleman's Game' - were caught out. Cheating.They were 'ball tampering'.

Shock. Horror.

A chap was observed with a bit of sandpaper in his hand, with which he had or intended to 'rub' a bit of the surface off the ball. !! 

He furtively shoved it down his underpants when the ref spotted him. One hopes he didn't rub the surface off anything sensitive down there.

To make matters worse, they cried ! 

On TV. 

The nation reeled in disgust. 

Now, playing the ball is what sport should be about. Not abusing the ball. Abuse is reserved for one's opponents. And there is precious little opportunity for that in the quiet of a cricket pitch where even most of the players are far apart and silent.  It is a gentleman's game. Not that such impediments stop Oz players. They 'sledge' at world standard.

Cricket is one of a very few sports where one's focus must be on the ball, not the man. Ad hominum is discouraged in logical discourse and cricket, but is the main objective of more manly sports. 
Anyone seen the ball? What ball?

Anyone who watches American Football, for instance, sees pretty quickly that most of the players are ballophobic. 

The teams attack one another and few have any idea where the ball is or who just might have it. 

Footophobics too, as kicking the ball is so rare as to stop the game altogether and calls out the dancing girls. 

I say 'manly' but that particular national sport requires armoured teams - who also wear long-johns - so barely qualifies. I would put them on horses, m'self. Like the old days.

No. Truewe Manly is Rugger. 

No armour there. Only the man with the ball is to be attacked. But with gusto.

There, 'cheating', if one can call it that and retain one's teeth, is par for the course, and we had one chap in the bar today- one Mr Ruddy Darter -  to take us through a small example of 'game in progress'.

Another infamous game in South Africa   ....
South Africa vs Ireland battle in Pretoria 1998
In June 1998, after tensions simmered during the 1st Test in Bloemfontein where Keith Wood had struck the Springbok captain Gary Teichmann in the jaw. The 2nd Test at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria erupted into an ill tempered violent match with plenty of fighting and incident. 
The sides refused to speak to each other in post match events. 
Now, it has to be said, that no matter what happens on the field, chaps should always remain polite and sociable over beers afterward. Damned unsporting not to talk with a chap, eh, what?  Furriners might be watching.

You can follow the script. It is a short series of encounters.

0:00 - Joost van der Westhuizen kicks Malcolm O'Kelly on the ground. 
0:20 - Victor Costello jumps and headlocks James Dalton, then Costello trips over Dalton, and then Dalton throws punches at Costello.
 0:41 - van der Westhuizen knocks back Keith Wood with an elbow then Gary Teichmann pushes back Wood by his throat.
 0:50 - Mark McCall and Pieter Muller argue off the ball then Muller chucks McCall on the floor. 
0:54 - Kevin Maggs pulls on Teichmann's jersey from behind as he tries to get the ball and then Teichmann reacts angrily. 
1:25 - After Wood runs into Dalton, Trevor Brennan throws a punch at Mark Andrews, then Paddy Johns gets his arms round Rassie Erasmus, and then Krynauw Otto helps Erasmus out and starts a fight with Johns with Erasmus and Justin Fitzpatrick getting some shots in as well. Brennan restarts his battle with Andrews whilst this goes on. 
2:23 - Andrews falls on top of Wood leading with his elbow hurting Wood in the process. 
2:29 - Johns throws over Andrews during a maul, then leans his forearm into Andrews' face and Andrews reacts by putting his hand in Johns' face. 
2:43 - Adrian Garvey and Peter Clohessy get in an argument after a reset scrum. 
2:53 - Teichmann reacts to Johns shouldering into his back at a ruck and they argue again, Clohessy also grapples with André Venter as well. 
3:21 - Andrews flings Justin Bishop out of a pile up well after the whistle has gone. 
3:30 - Clohessy punches Robbie Kempson during a maul. 
3:52 - Commentator Andy Capostagno singles out a late tackle by Rob Henderson on McNeil Hendricks as another piece of foul play off the ball. Note: There was far more incidents in this game not shown on camera.
A quite satisfying stouch m'thinks.

Memorable at least.

And..... No Ball was Damaged in Playing that Game. 

One might say, clean and ethical.

Have an ale and shake hands chaps.

Pax